On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:46:14 -0500, Jason House
<[email protected]> wrote:
Walter Bright Wrote:
Jason House wrote:
> KennyTM~ Wrote:
>
>> auto const?
>
> I was wondering the same thing.
The const transport thing is, unfortunately, a very different problem.
Of course, but it may still go through bikeshed issues. This morning I
read about inout, return, vconst, aconst, sameconst, autoconst, auto
const, and bikeshed. At least one of those was in jest :) auto const
isn't that bad, and you obviously liked auto ref...
I think one of the problems is that ref is a storage class, so it's easy
to insert another storage class on top of it.
With the const transport issue, the identifier has to be a type
constructor, and needs to decorate types in the same way const can. i.e.:
identifier(int)[]
but ref isn't like this, you don't see:
ref(int)[]
So if you used auto const, what does this mean:
auto const(int)[]
It looks strange to me. Remember that you will see this not only in
parameter types but in stack variable declarations.
This also makes auto a type constructor, which it is not currently. I
think we have enough multi-meaning keywords.
I don't really care what the keyword turns out to be, but I think it needs
to be a single keyword.
-Steve
